Using Technology to Deepen Democracy, Using Democracy to Ensure Technology Benefits Us All

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Futurological Scientism and Pseudo-Science As Anti-Science Ideology and Theology

Contrary to their endlessly reiterated self-promotional declarations to the contrary, so many of these software industry drones pretending to be expert physicists and geneticists and nanotechnologists as well as corporate-militarist yes-men pretending to be bioethicists and think-tank futurists clearly are not joining the various sects of the Robot Cult because they want to do serious science or engage in serious policy deliberation.

I am reminded of those finger-wagging statements circulated occasionally by think-tanks and advocacy organizations stealthfully funded by petrochemical interests and loudly boasting the signatures of thousands of "scientists" to create the impression that the actually overwhelming scientific consensus concerning the urgent threat of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is instead a left-wing conspiracy, but in which almost none of the signatories are scientists in fields the least bit relevant to the factual evaluation of the claims they are contesting (and for palpably ideological and not scientific reasons at that), if they are proper scientists at all. In such schemes the status and force of science is doubly looted and diluted: first, there is the specific undermining of an actually warranted consensus scientific belief, and an almost unprecedentedly urgent one at that, by scientists willing to conduct themselves unscientifically; and second, there is the general undermining of the force of warranted consensus scientific beliefs as such, however indispensable they may be to the administration of actually functional secular democratic societies, by actors irresponsibly willing to eschew long-term and general welfare for parochial, short-term, even minute momentary tactical advantages and gains. All this, in the service of extractive-industrial incumbent-elite profit-taking.

So, too, whatever its insistent but superficial scientificity, the substance and primary work of superlative futurology remains, as it always has been primarily:

one -- either ideological, consisting in prophetic utterances in the form of hyperbolic threat/profit assessments and marketing/promotional discourse wrapped in superficially technoscientific terminology providing incumbent-elite corporate-industrial interests rationales to justify continued profit-taking at the expense of majorities

two -- or theological, consisting in priestly utterances in the form of apocalyptic warnings of looming total catastrophes but also promises to the faithful of a techno-transcendence of mortality via super-longevity, error and humiliation via super-intelligence, and stress and worldly defeat via super-abundance providing both reassurance and consolation especially in the midst of the economic and ecologic distress of neoliberal-neoconservative technodevelopmental planetary precarization.

And, again, it is not just the reactionary political outcomes facilitated by their phony genuflections to scientificity that should be decried, but the deeper damage to the wholesome social force of science, properly so-called and in its proper precinct, that should worry critics of futurological (reductive) scientism and (hyperbolic) pseudo-science.

7 comments:

Speaking of "consensus science", a leading light of >Hismwrote, on the Extropians' list in April 2004( http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2004-April/005930.html )

"These are extraordinarily different things[:]The practice of science is a social process.The consensus of science is an opinion poll.

The actual working part of science is Bayesian probability theory, whichindividual scientists and their social dynamics partially and imperfectlymirror. . . .

Science intrinsically requires individual researchers setting theirjudgment above that of the scientific community. The social process ofscience encourages people to do the work and recognizes when they havedone the work. The social process is not an actual human brain, has notthe power of intelligence. If individuals do not have novel opinions and,yes, disagreements, for the scientific process to recognize as correct,there is no science. . . .

The overall rationality of academia is simply not good enough to handlesome necessary problems, as the case of Drexler illustrates. Individualhumans routinely do better than the academic consensus. . . .

Yes, the Way of rationality is difficult to follow. As illustrated by thedifficulty that academia encounters in following [it]. The social process ofscience has too many known flaws for me to accept it as my upper bound.Academia is simply not that impressive, and is routinely beaten byindividual scientists who learn to examine the evidence supporting theconsensus, apply simple filters to distinguish conclusive experimentalsupport from herd behavior. Robyn Dawes is among the scientists who havehelped document the pervasiveness of plausible-sounding consensuses thatdirectly contradict the available experimental evidence. Richard Feynmancorrectly dismissed psychoanalysis, despite the consensus, because helooked and lo, there was no supporting evidence whatsoever. Feynman tellsof how embarassing lessons taught him to do this on individual issues ofphysics as well, look up the original experiments and make sure theconsensus was well-supported.

Given the lessons of history, you should sit up and pay attention if ChrisPhoenix says that distinguished but elderly scientists are making blanketpronunciations of impossibility *without doing any math*, and withoutpaying any attention to the math, in a case where math has been done. Ifyou advocate a blanket acceptance of consensus so blind that I cannot evenapply this simple filter - I'm sorry, I just can't see it. It seems Imust accept the sky is green, if Richard Smalley says so.

The above was written in response to an expression of moreconventional reservations about the rejection, by another poster,of science as a "social process". (Yes, there are occasionallysensible voices heard in >Hist circles, but they are in the minority,I'm afraid. But this is one of them.)

> I've gone through a crisis of faith with regard to scientists recently.> In many areas, I've come to realize, scientists are far too> self-assured. They think they're practicing science, when in fact they> are merely contributing to science. A lone scientist can run> experiments, observe, make hypotheses, form opinions... but cannot fully> practice science, because science can only emerge from interactive> criticism. We are all too fallible to trust ourselves to generate good> science without lots of help.> ...> So how can science be reported to the real world? If one scientist's> opinion isn't trustworthy, what about lots of opinions together?> Michael Crichton has called this "consensus science," and correctly> attacked it. It's no more than a popularity contest for ideas, and the> popularity of an idea has little to do with its truth.

This is a dangerous road to take. I'd be concerned that if I startedoff doubting the practice of science as a guide to truth, I might aswell send in for my membership card in the Flat Earth Society, becausethat's where I'd end up.

You complain above that individually, scientists can't practice sciencebecause that requires interactive criticism. But in fact, most individualscientists do work in a framework of interaction. Most scientiststhat I've known are actually very cautious about criticism, and dotheir utmost to make their presentations and publications bulletproof.They'll go out of their way to mention any weaknesses or ambiguitiesin their theories specifically in order to pre-empt their critics fromraising those points. Science is a sport where defense counts more thanoffense, from my observations.

And then you go on and criticize consensus science as being no morethan a popularity contest. But this again overlooks the tremendousimportance of criticism in the scientific process. A scientificallyunsound theory, even if popular, cannot withstand criticism for long.There is too much temptation to jump onto the critical side once peoplesee that it is going to win. Science rewards successful critics,and this self correcting mechanism is part of what has made science sosuccessful as an institution.

The real problem with abandoning science is that you will have no guideto truth in our complex world. No one can become familiar with all ofthe technical details relevant to the issues we face. By abandoningscience you are explicitly turning away from the people who have spenttheir entire lives acquiring expertise in these areas.

Do you really think you are better able to weigh the many complexitiesaround, say, global warming than those who have devoted their careers tostudying the atmosphere and climate? Or similarly with other questionslike the safety of genetically engineered plants? Or even, yes, thefeasibility of nanotech?

I have an extreme belief in the importance of being open minded.I've written at length about the dangers I see in ideologies, the waythey blind us and control our thoughts. I've been strongly influenced bythe results that Robin Hanson has reported and extended about the wayswe fool ourselves, how we don't really seek the truth even though wethink we do. I believe in seeking the truth. To the extent that I havean ideology, that's it. I try to look for those mechanisms in my mindthat are operating to push me off the path to truth, and to compensatefor them as well as I can.

One of the principles I follow is that if I believe something thatmainstream science disagrees with, I am probably wrong. It's for thereasons given above. I'm not smarter than those guys, at least notthe smartest ones of them. And their expertise in these areas is fardeeper than my own. Plus they have this incredibly complex and elaborateprocess of modelling and testing and subjecting each others results tointense criticism, while my uninformed notions on those topics undergono such rigorous trials.

The lesson I learned from Robin is that if I disagree with someoneelse, it's an accident of history which position I ended up with.I could have just as easily been in his shoes. Hence I should haveno presumption that I am probably right, when there is a disagreement.Given this perspective, when I am going up against a scientific consensus,the odds are overwhelming that the scientists are right and I am wrong.

It looks to me like these attitudes are the only appropriate ones to adoptfor someone who sincerely seeks the truth. We have to try to discardor at least overcome our prejudices and egotistical belief in personalcorrectness and superiority. We have to be willing to change our mindswhen we come up against a situation where the experts disagree with us.

Without the guidance of the best advice and analysis available on asubject, I would be concerned about being vulnerable to all kinds ofquackery and fraud. We have many crazy beliefs right on this list.Some here refuse to accept the reality of global warming. Some believe inpsychic powers. Some reject the link between HIV and AIDS. Some believethe universe is packed full of intelligent life. Some believe that Israelcaused the 9/11 attacks. Some believe in cold fusion. And that's noteven mentioning the whole complex of beliefs about the Singularity.

Rejecting science means rejecting the best and most successful institutionmankind has ever developed for finding out the truth about the world.It puts you onto a dangerous path fraught with tempting falsehoods thatcan lead you astray. As I suggested above, you better set aside moneyfor your membership in the Crackpot League, because that's where thisroad ends.

"[My] publisher said of somebody, 'That man will get on; he believesin himself.' And I remember that as I lifted my head to listen, myeye caught an omnibus on which was written 'Hanwell.' I saidto him, 'Shall I tell you where the men are who believe most inthemselves? For I can tell you. I know of men who believe inthemselves more colossally than Napoleon or Caesar. I knowwhere flames the fixed star of certainty and success. I can guideyou to the thrones of the Super-men. The men who reallybelieve in themselves are all in lunatic asylums.' He said mildlythat there were a good many men after all who believed inthemselves and who were not in lunatic asylums. 'Yes, there are,'I retorted, 'and you of all men ought to know them. Thatdrunken poet from whom you would not take a dreary tragedy,he believed in himself. That elderly minister with an epic fromwhom you were hiding in a back room, he believed in himself.If you consulted your business experience instead of yourugly individualistic philosophy, you would know that believingin himself is one of the commonest signs of a rotter. Actorswho can't act believe in themselves; and debtors who won'tpay. It would be much truer to say that a man will certainly fail,because he believes in himself. Complete self-confidence is notmerely a sin; complete self-confidence is a weakness.Believing utterly in one's self is a hysterical and superstitious belieflike believing in Joanna Southcote: the man who has it has`Hanwell' written on his face as plain as it is written on that omnibus."

"If there are among my readers any young men or women whoaspire to become leaders of thought in their generation, Ihope they will avoid certain errors into which I fell inyouth for want of good advice. When I wished to form anopinion upon a subject, I used to study it, weigh thearguments on different sides, and attempt to reach abalanced conclusion. I have since discovered that thisis not the way to do things. A man of genius knowsit all without the need of study; his opinions arepontifical and depend for their persuasiveness uponliterary style rather than argument. It is necessaryto be one-sided, since this facilitates the vehemencethat is considered a proof of strength. It is essentialto appeal to prejudices and passions of which menhave begun to feel ashamed and to do this in the nameof some new ineffable ethic. It is well to decry theslow and pettifogging minds which require evidencein order to reach conclusions. Above all, whatever ismost ancient should be dished up as the very latestthing.

There is no novelty in this recipe for genius; itwas practised by Carlyle in the time of our grandfathers,and by Nietzsche in the time of our fathers, and it hasbeen practised in our own time by D. H. Lawrence. Lawrenceis considered by his disciples to have enunciated allsorts of new wisdom about the relations of men and women;in actual fact he has gone back to advocating the dominationof the male which one associates with the cave dwellers.Woman exists, in his philosophy, only as something softand fat to rest the hero when he returns from his labours.Civilised societies have been learning to see something morethan this in women; Lawrence will have nothing of civilisation.He scours the world for what is ancient and dark and lovesthe traces of Aztec cruelty in Mexico. Young men, who hadbeen learning to behave, naturally read him with delight andgo round practising cave-man stuff so far as the usages ofpolite society will permit.

One of the most important elements of success in becominga man of genius is to learn the art of denunciation. Youmust always denounce in such a way that your reader thinksthat it is the other fellow who is being denounced and nothimself; in that case he will be impressed by your noblescorn, whereas if he thinks that it is himself that youare denouncing, he will consider that you are guilty ofill-bred peevishness. Carlyle remarked: ``The populationof England is twenty millions, mostly fools.'' Everybodywho read this considered himself one of the exceptions,and therefore enjoyed the remark. You must not denouncewell-defined classes, such as persons with more than acertain income, inhabitants of a certain area, or believersin some definite creed; for if you do this, some readerswill know that your invective is directed against them.You must denounce persons whose emotions are atrophied,persons to whom only plodding study can reveal the truth,for we all know that these are other people, and weshall therefore view with sympathy your powerful diagnosisof the evils of the age.

Ignore fact and reason, live entirely in the world ofyour own fantastic and myth-producing passions; do thiswhole-heartedly and with conviction, and you will becomeone of the prophets of your age."

Interactive media and innovation guru Robert Tercek gavean excellent talk at the HPlus Summit at Harvard this summer. . .

His presentation, titled “What Geeks Can Learn from Gurus,”lays out the problem with trying to convince a public that hasalready been inundated with years of poor imagery of techno-life.Having worked with Tony Robbins and Oprah Winfrey, Tercekoffers a practical four step solution to the Singularity'sbranding problem: